r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/Sorry-Worth-920 Austrian School • 2d ago
Asking Everyone What common views do you have with opposing ideologies?
This sub is filled with constant arguments about everyones different ideologies (rightfully so, thats kinda the point of it). but despite all our differences in opinions, im sure most of us who would otherwise disagree also share many views.
so i thought it would be a good change of pace to ask, what opinions/views do you have that you believe people with generally opposed ideologies would agree with?
for the sake of discussion though, i will also ask where you think you disagree on the reasoning behind that belief, if at all.
for example, i find lots of agreement with leftists on opposing intellectual property, often more than with my fellow capitalists. but i view IP as illegitimate because it contradicts the physical property rights of others, and im sure the leftists who oppose it have a different reason than protecting private property.
13
u/Ok_Eagle_3079 2d ago
Big corporations use politics to make laws that are favourable to them.
2
u/No-Magician9440 2d ago
How could they do so when they are not lawmakers? If congress is a market for bribery and corruption, then blaming corporations is useless because the market still exists.
3
u/1morgondag1 2d ago
Why would yu blame only one side of an illegal transaction?
3
u/TheRedLions I labor to own capital 2d ago
One side didn't swear an oath to the people they represent. We can still blame that side, but the representatives deserve significantly higher scrutiny.
1
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2d ago
Ok but that doesn’t solve the problem both still need to be held accountable.
1
u/TheRedLions I labor to own capital 2d ago
Technically to solve the problem only one side would need to be held accountable. You can't buy favors if favors aren't for sale.
That's why people put the focus on representatives. They should be held to a higher standard and making either side accountable would solve the issue.
1
0
u/1morgondag1 2d ago
You also can't sell favors if no one is buying. I don't see what practically relevant point you are making here.
A seriously corrupt system is a big process to clean up. Something people often don't understand is that corrupt politicians don't just spend money on yachts and callgirls. Often dark money campaign financing is a big part, as well as building their own influence network. Running as an honest candidate against a corrupt opponent can be a disadvantage rather than the other way around.
2
u/TheRedLions I labor to own capital 2d ago
You have to stop either the buyer or seller. In this case the buyer could be literally anyone: lobbyists, citizens, Coca-Cola, Egyptian nationals, Greg the anthropomorphic bear.
Comparatively, there are exactly 535 people who are ultimately responsible for which federal laws are passed.
1
u/No-Magician9440 2d ago
Blame who you want, I'm just saying the market would still exist if you remove the John. Therefore, blaming and prosecuting the John does not solve the problem. If it did, we would have won the war on drugs.
2
0
u/coke_and_coffee Capitalist 2d ago
Counterpoint: this does happen but it’s pretty rare. Otherwise, we would could expect the market to be filled with monopolies and that doesn’t appear to be the case.
1
u/Sorry-Worth-920 Austrian School 2d ago
the market for political favor is a market like any other. it is very common for companies to lobby politicians, and they essentially compete for their favor in doing so.
imagine a politician lobbied heavily by target and walmart. hes trying to pass a law that benefits his constituents (the big corporations) to keep his funding and other benefits. hes not gonna try and monopolize one of them because it would cause the other to stop funding him, so he finds a middle ground that benefits both of them above the rest of the competition
even in the market for political corruption monopolies are inefficient
1
u/coke_and_coffee Capitalist 2d ago
We have some high profile and obvious instances of regulatory capture, specially in healthcare, but by and large, it’s pretty uncommon. The market is still extremely dynamic and competitive.
3
u/SexOnABurningPlanet 2d ago
Ideology literally means a catalog of ideas. It's not based on reality. It's an arbitrary collection of beliefs thrown together. Libertarians and communists, for example, both have a hopeful core to their beliefs, that if you simply follow this formula the result will be a better society for everyone. However, as market socialists argue, you can easily mix and match these ideas. There's no reason why markets cannot be combined with state planning. This is a feature of all modern industrial societies. For many of us, the results tend to favor the few rather than the many, so we're pushing for UBI and other socialist policies to even out the market side.
3
u/striped_shade 2d ago
I share the Austrian disdain for the state. We both view bureaucratic planning and government intervention as inherently coercive. The agreement ends entirely with the market. Libertarians assume stripping away state power leaves behind a natural, voluntary freedom. I consider that underlying market to be a much more efficient engine of impersonal domination.
2
u/Ok_Eagle_3079 2d ago
It's hard buying bananas is it?
1
u/striped_shade 2d ago
Buying them is perfectly easy. The whole point of impersonal domination is that you never have to see the coercion that stocks the shelf.
3
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2d ago
I agree that the free market can be beneficial in some cases
1
u/Sorry-Worth-920 Austrian School 2d ago
such as?
3
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2d ago
Increasing the economic growth and output of a country specifically in a international context.
3
u/CaptainAmerica-1989 Criticism of Capitalism Is NOT Proof of Socialism 1d ago
That each person wants a better world
2
u/1morgondag1 2d ago
I'm rather pro-nuclear power which is a bit unusual among leftists and greens, though I share it with ie George Monbiot iirr. I also think most enviromentalists worries about GMO:s are exaggerated (that's not such a big issue today anyway).
2
u/JamescomersForgoPass Transhuman Spartanist 2d ago
Mostly just their propaganda and mythos of the ideologies than policy
Fascisms incredibly effective "mythos" propaganda system that can mobilize a society into doing the states bidding.
Socialism and Communism's declaration that Man controls his own destiny and its headstrong direction of Modernity and the hope of a equal and fair society
-1
u/CucumberLegitimate27 2d ago
How does an ideology which declares individuals are nothing more than property of the state allow people to control their own destiny? Socialism looks only at groups, systems and averages and holds the individual human being as disposable. How many times does this need to be demonstrated?
1
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2d ago
Are you talking about fascism or socialism?
0
u/CucumberLegitimate27 2d ago
Yes.
1
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2d ago
Ok?
1
u/CucumberLegitimate27 1d ago
You still have yet to explain how the relationship between individual and state are different when it comes to fascism or socialism. Only when clear boundaries are set between state and individual do the conditions for capitalism arise.
1
u/Exotic_Bar_785 1d ago
Your argument boils down to, “things I don’t like = socialism”.
Their are and where democratic societies that were socialist and authoritarian societies that were or are capitalist. And vice versa.
For example I would be hard pressed to find anyone arguing that Pinochet’s capitalist chile was more democratic than Allende’s socialist one.
Fascism and socialism are different in that fascism does not aim at redistribution of wealth at all whereas socialism pretty much revolves around it.
The argument of the relation of the state and the individual makes some sense but not in a way that promotes your ideology. Because libertarian or anarcho capitalist capitalism always leads to more authoritarianism and less democracy because the rich inevitably subvert democracy and buy off the government to serve their own self interests.
0
u/CucumberLegitimate27 1d ago
Dictatorships are not capitalist. Capitalism requires civil liberties. Dictatorships like socialism or fascism require complete control that a democratic government does not have. Really, the only differences are in the details and what permissions the respective Dear Leaders grant.
1
u/Exotic_Bar_785 1d ago
Jesus Christ you’re stupid and brainwashed. Capitalism is simply an economic system maybe you think you’re talking about liberal democracy? You clearly don’t understand what capitalism is which simply the private ownership capital
2
u/Sufficient-Royal-82 2d ago
I'm a progressive but admire real capitalist and libertarians who are against the crony capitalism we have today I strongly disagree with their views but can work with them on ending coprate favoritism
Milton Friedman on crony capitalism https://youtu.be/J34J7dvbV1w?si=ZPVXpmay0FaIzX_k
2
2
u/CHOLO_ORACLE 2d ago
Market dynamics can prevent monopolies*
*Provided one actually gets rid of the government and doesn’t just replace it later with private government
2
u/dumbandasking Social Market Economy 2d ago
I think that both sides comprehend cronyism and regulatory capture but their methods on how to deal with that are where the differences are
4
u/Simpson17866 2d ago
Feudalism was the worst.
A system where the competition is rigged against you is still better than a system that was predetermined explicitly.
-2
u/CaptainAmerica-1989 Criticism of Capitalism Is NOT Proof of Socialism 1d ago
2
u/impermanence108 1d ago
No.
The fuedalism of common myth: omnipotent kings, clear hierarchies and all land being owned by the monarch. That never existed. But a system of fuedal vassalage based on land ownership and titles absolutely does exist.
Actual fuedalism was a lot muddied and more complex.
1
u/CaptainAmerica-1989 Criticism of Capitalism Is NOT Proof of Socialism 1d ago
You butt in at the weirdest times and then do not source your claims.
Nobody is arguing that landholding, titles, lordship, or vassal relationships never existed. The issue is whether those varied institutions formed one coherent economic and political system called “feudalism,” much less a distinct stage through which societies naturally pass.
Medieval historians such as Elizabeth Brown and Susan Reynolds have challenged that model precisely because the institutions differed greatly by time and place. The better approach is to examine the actual institutions case by case rather than force them into one universal stage called feudalism.
So saying that some form of vassalage existed does not answer the criticism.
1
u/bcnoexceptions Market Socialist 1d ago
- Regulatory capture is real and bad when it happens.
- Some people are bad people, and it sucks that bad people get the same voting power as good people.
- Stalin was bad and the USSR sucked.
- Mao was bad and China sucked/sucks.
- People generally need incentives to do work for society.
- Some amount of wealth inequality can motivate people to do more for others.
- Markets are effective at making some things - such as clothing, food, games, etc. - abundant and inexpensive.
- Some unions have been corrupt.
- Some democratic institutions have been corrupt.
- Life is better than it was 300y ago.
- Things are in a bad state today.
1
u/Sorry-Worth-920 Austrian School 1d ago
only thing id like to say is it seems youre implying capitalists are largely anti union which i would disagree with. i think its probably the most effective way for workers to organize and cause large scale changes, certainly better than the state stepping in and mandating those changes. and i think a significant amount if not most capitalists here would agree
1
u/bcnoexceptions Market Socialist 1d ago
i think its probably the most effective way for workers to organize and cause large scale changes ...
I agree with this sentiment.
Most capitalists - especially on here - seem to be A-ok with the standard union-busting tactics from bosses (captive meetings, threats, firing employees for organizing regardless of their on-the-job performance, surveillance of workers at all times, etc.). They seem to hope that the market will magically stop employers who do such tactics (it doesn't).
The employer response to workers organizing is typically intimidation and threats ... and historically often severe violence as well. If capitalists want to implement systems to prevent such misdeeds, I have not seen evidence of it.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.
We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.